Access

If You Use a Screen Reader

This content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.

\Environmental Health Perspectives (EHP) is a monthly peer-reviewed journal of research and news published with support from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The mission of EHP is to serve as a forum for the discussion of the interrelationships between the environment and human health by publishing high-quality research and news of the field. With an impact factor of 7.03, EHP is the third-ranked journal in Public, Environmental, and Occupational Health, the fourth-ranked journal in Toxicology, and the fifth-ranked journal in Environmental Sciences

Current Issues of Environmental Health Perspectives are freely available to all users on the journal's website.

The "moving wall" represents the time period between the last issue
available in JSTOR and the most recently published issue of a journal.
Moving walls are generally represented in years. In rare instances, a
publisher has elected to have a "zero" moving wall, so their current
issues are available in JSTOR shortly after publication.
Note: In calculating the moving wall, the current year is not counted.
For example, if the current year is 2008 and a journal has a 5 year
moving wall, articles from the year 2002 are available.

Terms Related to the Moving Wall

Fixed walls: Journals with no new volumes being added to the archive.

Absorbed: Journals that are combined with another title.

Complete: Journals that are no longer published or that have been
combined with another title.

Content for this title is released as soon as the latest issues become available to JSTOR.

Abstract

In a 1981 review, Doll and Peto estimated that approximately 35% of cancer deaths in the United States were potentially avoidable by the modification of diet but that this percentage might be as low as 10% or as high as 70%. Since that time, the epidemiologic literature on diet and cancer has grown greatly, as has understanding of the mechanisms of carcinogenesis. In general, this expanded literature has not provided reason to alter the Doll and Peto estimate substantially. For colon cancer, evidence has accumulated that some of the international differences that were attributed to diet are probably due to physical activity. For breast cancer, the concept that fat intake per se is the primary reason for differences in rates among countries has not been supported by prospective studies. Although several lines of evidence suggest that caloric restriction and slow growth rates may contribute importantly to the low rates of breast cancer found outside Western countries, this may not translate directly to practical means of prevention. In contrast to breast cancer, more recent data have supported a causative role for red meat in the development of colon and prostate cancers, although perhaps not entirely due to its fat content. Whereas earlier thinking about nutrition and cancer emphasized the adverse effects of fat and other components in the diet, the most compelling evidence of the last decade has indicated the importance of protective factors, largely unidentified, in fruits and vegetables. Considering the more recent evidence, it is roughly estimated that about 32% of cancer may be avoidable by changes in diet; however, it now seems unlikely that less than 20% or more than 42% of cancer deaths would be avoidable by dietary change.